persistent non-Who stuff

[Jeff House <jjthandmeh@juno.com>]

James PP Burnes wrote:
"As long as we are going to persist in non-Who related political jabs on
the list, can you imagine the spin Bubba and Gore et al would have tried
had they been in GW's shoes?"
<snip>
"The problem with his opponent and his ilk is that they lie so much they
have even lost the ability to discern when they are lying or telling the
truth. "
<snip>
"And all the cracks about grammar errors are tired - I guess everyone
posting this stuff is an english major huh?"
<snip>
"The bottom line is, if I wanted to be on a political list, I would join
one."

Speaking as a Gore-ilk grammar exeprt (huge :-)  this mean there is a
grin on my face *I am joking*)

I think we have been isolating the arguments into snappy one-liners in
our signatures for some time now.  Surely they can't all be funny to all
readers, but we have been keeping it to a dull roar.  Part of the reason
is that some of us have been discussing politics off the list.  If you
want to grapple in that format - I can offer my services to serve that
purpose.

I think we have been keeping our political disagreements in the
background.  My advice:  If you take exception with something that has
been posted along political lines - try to discuss it with them off-list.
 It can be fun and a healthy release of pre-election anxiety.  The real
discomfort happens when we start attacking each other directly on the
list.  IMO That is not happening (at the moment).

Jeff
Anxious in MA